Bare Ground

Benchmark Value

70 %

Thresholds: Lower: —, Upper: 70

Direction: Lower is desirable ↓

Form: UpperThreshold

Scoring Curve

This curve shows how a field measurement for this indicator would score across all available benchmark forms in this context. The scoring engine uses 3 benchmarks together — the OptimalRange form drives the primary score, while 2 guard(s) constrain the result.

Contributing Benchmarks

OptimalRange Primary MinimumOnly Guard UpperThreshold Guard

Evidence & Context

"where more than 70% of the ground surface is bare, protective measures must be implemented"

Metric Definition:

Portion of forest floor where there is no protective cover

Benchmark Definition:

This benchmark defines the upper threshold of bare ground on forest floor beyond which protective measures must be implemented to prevent unacceptable erosion risk.

Justification:

Threshold where erosion risk becomes unacceptable

Sources (1)

Preview of Private Native Forestry Code of Practice for Southern NSW - FAOLEX, accessed May 15, 2025

Private Native Forestry Code of Practice for Southern NSW - FAOLEX, accessed May 15, 2025 Journal

Forestry Corporation of NSW (2022). Private Native Forestry Code of Practice for Southern New South Wales.

View Source

Supporting Sources (8)

Additional references from the underlying research that informed this benchmark.

ABARES (2025). Indicator 4.1b: Management of the risk of soil erosion in forests. Australia's State of the Forests Report.

Contextual Support Government

ABARES (2023). Indicator 5.1a: Contribution of forest ecosystems to the global carbon cycle. Australia's State of the Forests Report.

View Source

Cunningham, S. C., & Walsh, N. G. (2004). Treeless subalpine vegetation of the Kosciuszko region. Cunninghamia, 8(4), 439-452.

Direct Evidence Regulatory Framework Government

Cunningham, S. C., & Walsh, N. G. (2004). Treeless subalpine vegetation of the Kosciuszko region. Cunninghamia, 8(4), 439-452.

View Source

Foulkes, J., & Corkrey, R. (2021). Assessing the post-fire recovery of alpine shrublands: A study in the Tasmanian Highlands. Fire, 4(3), 32.

Contextual Support Direct Evidence Journal

Foulkes, J., & Corkrey, R. (2021). Assessing the post-fire recovery of alpine shrublands: A study in the Tasmanian Highlands. Fire, 4(3), 32.

View Source

Preview of Long-term Vegetation Change in Relation to Cattle Grazing in Subalpine Grassland and Heathland on the Bogong High Plains - DCCEEW, accessed on May 25, 2025,

Long-term Vegetation Change in Relation to Cattle Grazing in Subalpine Grassland and Heathland on the Bogong High Plains - DCCEEW, accessed on May 25, 2025,

Contextual Support Journal

Wood, S. W., et al. (2015). The Ausplots Forest Monitoring Network: Tall eucalypt forests. PLOS ONE.

View Source

Private Forests Tasmania (2021). Management of Natural regeneration in eucalypt plantations.

Direct Evidence Journal

Private Forests Tasmania (2021). Management of Natural regeneration in eucalypt plantations.

View Source

Preview of Schedule-1-Management-Standards-and-Procedures-for-timber-harvesting-operations-in-Victorias-State-forests.pdf, accessed March 28, 2026,

Schedule-1-Management-Standards-and-Procedures-for-timber-harvesting-operations-in-Victorias-State-forests.pdf, accessed March 28, 2026,

Contextual Support Journal

Wahren, C. H., Papst, W. A., & Williams, R. J. (1999). Long-term vegetation change in the Bogong High Plains, Victoria.

View Source

Soil erosion hazard, accessed July 20, 2025,

Direct Evidence Journal

Forest Practices Authority Tasmania (2010). Technical Bulletin 2: Eucalyptus delegatensis forests.

View Source

Technical Bulletin 2: Eucalyptus delegatensis forests

Direct Evidence Journal

New South Wales Government. (2022). Private Native Forestry Code of Practice for Southern NSW.

View Source

Benchmark Value

Scoring Curve

Contributing Benchmarks

Evidence & Context

Sources (1)

Supporting Sources (8)

Context

Lifecycle

Notes

Related Benchmarks